DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to "[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data" was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs (MPEP § 2173.05(p)).
In the present example of Claim 2, the process of component selection and substitution of said component, a wiring sheet, for another similar modular component is recited in the claim language such that it is indefinite because it is not directed to the apparatus, but rather to actions of the individual user processing a selection and substitution of a wiring sheet, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2024/0151764. The examiner notes that were foreign priority to be perfected this reference may not qualify under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) but would still qualify under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) due to its filing date of 4/17/2023 and therefore is rejected in the alternative under the grounds of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding Claim 1, Wu teaches an electrical connection apparatus used for an inspection of an object to be inspected (see figure 2, 100), the electrical connection apparatus comprising:
a plurality of terminals for inspection in contact with the object to be inspected (figure 2, DUT 60 and terminals 61);
a wiring board that includes a plurality of first electrodes each of which is connected to any one of the terminals for inspection, and a plurality of second electrodes each of which is electrically connected to any one of the first electrodes (see figure 2, wiring board 41 comprised of a first set of electrodes 43 and second set of electrodes 44);
a wiring sheet that includes a first connection portion arranged on a first main surface, a second connection portion arranged on a second main surface facing the first main surface, and an internal circuit electrically connected to the first connection portion, and is laminated on the wiring board such that the first connection portion is connected to the second electrodes (see figure 2, in which wiring sheet 20 connects at first connection portion 22 to second electrodes 44, and is laminated to the wiring board; a second connection portion is interpreted as 24); and
a printed board that faces the wiring board with the wiring sheet therebetween and includes wiring patterns connected to the second connection portion (figure 2, see element 30, interpreted as a printed board);
wherein the wiring sheet is configured in an attachable/detachable manner between the wiring board and the printed board (see figure 2, in which the components can be seen as being modular, thus configured, at least broadly, in an attachable/detachable manner).
Regarding Claim 4, Wu teaches the electrical connection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the internal circuit of the wiring sheet includes a circuit for electrically connecting the first connection portion and the second connection portion (seen in figures 2 and 3A, in which the electrical connections, at least in part, connect the first connection portion and the second connection portion).
Regarding Claim 7, Wu teaches the electrical connection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first connection portion is provided in plurality, and the internal circuit of the wiring sheet includes a circuit for electrically connecting any one of the first connection portions and the other one of the first connection portions (seen in figures 2 and 3A-3D).
Regarding Claim 10, Wu teaches the electrical connection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first connection portion is provided in plurality, the second connection portion is provided in plurality, and the internal circuit of the wiring sheet includes a relay circuit that switches to electrically connect one of the first connection portions to either one of the second connection portions or the other one of the first connection portions (seen in figures 2-5).
Regarding Claim 12, Wu teaches the electrical connection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each of the terminals for inspection is a probe having one end connected to any one of the first electrodes on the wiring board and the other end in contact with a signal terminal of the object to be inspected (seen in figure 4).
Regarding Claim 13, Wu teaches the electrical connection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the terminals for inspection are disposed in a test socket connected to an external terminal of a package in which the object to be inspected is mounted (seen in figure 5, 70).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2024/0151764 in view of Ostrowski et al. US Patent No.: US 12,085,609.
Regarding Claim 5, Wu teaches the electrical connection apparatus according to claim 4, but is silent in teaching wherein the internal circuit of the wiring sheet includes a circuit for short-circuiting the first connection portion and the second connection portion. However, Ostrowski teaches wherein the internal circuit of the wiring sheet includes a circuit for short-circuiting the first connection portion and the second connection portion (see Ostrowski col.10, lns.41-51, which discusses a relay effectively acting as a circuit for short-circuiting a point between two connection of an interlayer of a testing device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Wu with those of Ostrowksi in order to remove electrostatic charge when not in use (see Ostrowski col.10, lns.41-51).
Regarding Claim 8, Wu teaches the electrical connection apparatus according to claim 7, but is silent in teaching wherein the internal circuit of the wiring sheet includes a circuit for short-circuiting any one of the first connection portions and the other one of the first connection portions. However, Ostrowski teaches wherein the internal circuit of the wiring sheet includes a circuit for short-circuiting any one of the first connection portions and the other one of the first connection portions (see Ostrowski col.10, lns.41-51, which discusses a relay effectively acting as a circuit for short-circuiting a point between two connection of an interlayer of a testing device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Wu with those of Ostrowksi in order to remove electrostatic charge when not in use (see Ostrowski col.10, lns.41-51).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2024/0151764 in view of Nakano et al. USPG Pub. No.: 2013/0265073.
Regarding Claim 11, Wu teaches the electrical connection apparatus according to claim 1, but is silent in explicitly teaching wherein the wiring board is a space transformer that extends a distance between the terminals for inspection to a distance between the wiring patterns in the printed board when viewed from a direction normal to a main surface of the wiring board. However, Nakano teaches wherein the wiring board is a space transformer that extends a distance between the terminals for inspection to a distance between the wiring patterns in the printed board when viewed from a direction normal to a main surface of the wiring board (see Nakano [0004]-[0005] and figure 2, 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Wu with those of Nakano in order to increase electrode pitches (as discussed in Nakano [0004]-[0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
RE Claim 3, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “wherein the wiring sheet has a structure in which a laminated body of a conductive film and an insulating film is interposed between cover films of an insulating material,” in combination with the other claim limitations.
RE Claim 6, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “wherein the internal circuit of the wiring sheet includes a matching circuit that has a first terminal connected to the first connection portion and a second terminal connected to the second connection portion and performs impedance matching between the first connection portion and the second connection portion,” in combination with the other claim limitations.
RE Claim 9, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “wherein the internal circuit of the wiring sheet includes a capacitor connected in series between any one of the first connection portions and the other one of the first connection portions,” in combination with the other claim limitations. Note that Park USPG Pub. No.: 2013/0257470 is the closest prior art to this claim limitation (see [0009]-[0011] and figure 8, 36), but does not disclose the series connection between connection portions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at (571) 272-3555. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL A HARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2852